About your Search

20121116
20121116
SHOW
( more )
STATION
FOXNEWS 18
MSNBC 18
MSNBCW 18
CNN 17
CNNW 17
KPIX (CBS) 7
WUSA (CBS) 7
CSPAN 4
WMAR (ABC) 4
WRC (NBC) 4
WTTG 4
FBC 3
WBAL (NBC) 3
WJLA (ABC) 3
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 159
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 159 (some duplicates have been removed)
deliberately watered down the talking points. so when the president says that susan rice was giving out -- talking about the most updated and the fully documented intelligence that the intelligence community had, that's not true because there were a number of analysis that had been done in the three days leading up to the talking points, which clearly showed by the intelligence community's own analysis that al qaeda-affiliated groups were directly involved. this is a total -- sham. >> sean: we need to findoud who took them out. i mean -- >> here we have the leaders in the american intelligence community saying khalid al-sayah they don't know who altered their talking points. if we can't find out who in the administration altered the talking points, how are we going to find out what the enemy's doing. >> sean: congressman heck, the realtime video. from what i understand, there were two sets of video, one from the drone above, which got there 15 minutes after it started or thereabouts. and video from the compound itself. can you describe what was on the video, sir? >> well, the video that
, and ambassador susan rice come over a two-week period. catherine herridge learned today that neither the director of national intelligence, nor the acting cia director, was responsible for repairing preparing a report that partially blamed the benghazi attack on amateurish youtube anti-islam video. they claim the president obama pressed upon the american people and upon the united nations general assembly. he was push hard to explain what caused them to push the youtube video three days after that attack. the chief said simply he was not at the betray -- petraeus briefing and had nothing to say. there was demonstrable and incurable evidence of their involvement and no evidence of anything other than a terrorist attack. and the administration continued to press its false tale, despite fox news reporting and they reported within 24 hours, u.s. intelligence agencies monomania that the attack was an act of terrorism with ties to al qaeda, but had also identified and located one of the leaders of the attack. despite warnings hours before, state department e-mails reviewed two hours into the attack tha
, therefore, not in the much talked about talking points that susan rice and others refer to publicly where there was a lot more focus on the potential for a spontaneous demonstration, the video, that kind of thing. that the piece of this puzzle that was more clearly known by the intelligence community of the involvement of terror groups was classified. in part that could be argued as a protection required in order to try to pursue them, that kind of thing. that is new information today, and it helps to show us how there might have been two tracks happening all along. the public statements that were reflecting part of what they may have known. the real question is, if they knew it was terrorism all along, was there too much suggestion that a video or demonstrations may have been involved? that's what people see very differently often based on their political point of view. >> yes, and it is based on political point of view. the fact of the matter, the information that susan rice was provided and what she indicated on "meet the press" and other programs, that would have been a part of the de
was taken out of the final version that we believe was ultimately given to the u.n. ambassador, susan rice. why was that done? who did this? catherine herridge is live on capitol hill. reporter: that's right. congressional horses tell fox news that there were changes to the cia talking points and that language of al qaeda affiliated individuals was replace -- replaced, which have the impact of minimizing or downplaying the role of al qaeda and another group, al sharia come on the consulate on 9/11. there was also testimony this week that the intelligence community to those talking points and went to an interagency process. so that other elements of the intelligence community as well as input and review by the state department, as well as the department of justice, that eventually made its way to ambassador susan rice. no one commissioner who was the final author of this talking point given to ambassador susan rice, who is on the sunday talk show on september 16 and repeated on multiple occasions that meant david was in response to the anti-islam video and that was a demonstration that had
, the talking points of susan rice saw in the next 48 hours before she appeared on the sunday talk shows said it was mob violence and video. what do you make of that, tucker? >> this was the big revelation of the day as far as i can tell. it's not clear that susan rice didn't see the original talking points, but the administration conceded today all, but conceded, said, flat-out, we know that al-qaeda was involved, and the term al-qaeda was listed in the origin tell againintelligen and taken out. and the administration says al-qaeda or affiliates classified information, so they had to be scrubbed from what was given to congress. and even if you accept that's a legitimate operating procedure, you have to acknowledge that they've intentionally misled, susan rice-- >> who is they? >> susan rice, but clearly the cia knew this. it's inconceivable that the american ambassador to the united nations was sent out on television with totally incomplete information, with talking points that had been basically scrubbed and having no knowledge of what was originally in them. >> is it clear that susan rice
evidence to the c.i.a. that it was clear there were pirates involved. susan rice said a spontaneous protest over an anti-islam video sparked the attack but democratic lawmakers say that can be explained. >> what is very clear is that ambassador rice used the talking points the intelligence committee had all signed off on. >>trace: they added that the c.i.a. approved the talking points and it is unclear who changed them before ambassador rice made them public. catherine has the news from capitol hill. what do we know about the changing language in the talking points? >>reporter: thank you, trace. a short time ago the former c.i.a. director, david petraeus, left capitol hill after about five hours of testimony, closed classifyied testimony before the house and senate intelligence committee and a take away was the unclassified talking points put together by the c.i.a. a congressional source told fox the language was changed from the original draft which included the language "al qaeda affiliated" with a later version saying "extremist organizations." they believed this was an effort to down pl
. >> that leads us now to susan rice, the u.s. ambassador to the united nations who went on national television and said this attack in benghazi, libya, was probably because of this anti-muslim film. >> reporter: exactly. >> she had talking points, right? where did those talking points come from? did they come from petraeus and the cia, were they edited later by the white house, do we know? >> reporter: we don't know. you heard peter king was asked that specific question. according to him and some others, we still don't know exactly where the disconnect was, if you will, between what the intelligence community now says that they believed at the time and the talking points that ended up with susan rice that ended up on television that sunday afterwards. it still doesn't seem to be very clear. the reason why he is now the former cia director is because of the affair that david petraeus had. he resigned one week ago. the question is whether or not that would come up at all. he said it was addressed at the beginning and he regretted what happened and that they didn't really address it at all after
cain, who also never forgives, and president obama over susan rice. could it be mccain hasn't gotten over the 2008 election? we're sort of stacking up revenge here on the other side. i got nothing more to say about that. >>> plus spy fall, what we're learning about the affair that brought down the cia chief and perhaps derailed the promotion of the top general. and has been tabloid fodder now for almost a week. >>> and besides complaining about how president obama won re-election by giving away gifts to minorities and young voters, ever wonder what mitt romney has done -- actually been doing since the election? well, david letterman has an idea. >> today mitt romney drew a picture of the house of representatives chamber and gave a state of the union address in front of it. >> and the fourth new entitlement, obama care, we repeal that one. >> message from pretend president romney. >> got a few more of those sugar plums in the side shows. let me finish way book about when we hay hero for a president. this is "hardball," the place for politics. ave to eat it as pt of your heart healthy diet.
by the cia and what was ultimately embraced to am bass sore susan rice. what we mean here is there was a review process and an editing process in which the emphasis on extremist groups, al-qaida, an sar al says sharia was deemphasized in the second version used by ambassador rice. at what point did the former cia director believe that this was an act of terrorism or an act of extremists? a s*r member of the committee told fox a sort time ago was what the director laid off was an evolving picture on intel kwrepbs. >> he reinforced the facts -- in the first 24 hours he felt at that point, or the cia felt at that point that this was a protest as a result of what happened with the film. he clarified that after -- after more information came in there was not a protest. >> reporter: one lawmaker telling fox after the hearing that he did feel that there were discrepancies between the former cia director's statements today about what he said on september 14th, and the recollection of that lawmaker. let's listen. >> his testimony today was that from the start he had told us that th
that hearing to rally around susan rice. >> to say that she is unqualified to be secretary of state, i think, is a mistake. and the way it keeps going, it's almost as if -- >> and the middle east on the brink. israel and hamas exchanging fire as casualties mount. amid talk of all-out war. >> will continue to exercise this prudence and self-restraint while defending our citizens against terrorism. >> opening round, president obama and congressional leaders kick off talks to avoid the looming fiscal cliff. >> what folks are looking for and i think all of us agree on this, action. they want to see we are focused on them, not focused on our politics here in washington. >> the framework that i've outlined in our meeting today is consistent with the president's call for a fair and balanced approach. to show our seriousness we put revenue on the table as long as it's accompanied by significant spending cuts. >> i can say on the part of my members that we fully understand that you can't save the country until you have entitlement programs that fit the demographics of the changing america in the comi
the whole white house. take a listen. >> so when the president says that susan rice was giving out -- talking about the most updated and -- fully documented intelligence that the intelligence community had, that's not true. >> last night the message was that susan rice was disseminating incorrect intelligence and the president is wrong for defending her. now here is mr. king today after an intelligence briefing. >> did he seem concerned that things had been changed? was that surprising to you? >> he seemed to say at the time they didn't realize the full significance of that and that or an unclassified statement it was acceptable. again, it's still very vague. >> petraeus told king today that, quote, for an unclassified statement this was acceptable. again, it's still very vague. dana, to paraphrase the president, republicans got out in front of their own skis on this one, didn't they? >> yes. well, in congress they have a tradition of revising and extending their remarks and i think peter king -- what peter king just said was "never mind." >> what he said earlier, what do we do wit
's comments five days later? why that was still the line of spontaneous -- >> we talked some about susan rice. susan rice got a lot of the same information that we did. i'll make a comparison to colin powell. when colin powell went before the united nations, getting information from the administration on the facts. >> you said that within 24 hours -- [inaudible] this was five days later. >> i said they knew right away that there were terrorists involved in the operation. >> why wasn't that part -- >> wait, are you finished? what? give it to me. >> in other words, if he knew within 24 hours it was terrorist-related, how come five days later in the talking points for susan rice it still was saying it's a spontaneous demonstration? >> i assume dish didn't talk to susan rice, i assume she received information and he was not a part of briefing susan rice. information coming together with a different agencies that were involved and had jurisdiction, giving information to susan rice or anyone else, including our committee. >> i was following that. you answered the question. >> he was the head of the
. >> let me say specifically about susan rice. she has bun examplary work. >> the president the united states is commander in chief. it is not exercise those responsibility. >> this goes back to a grudge since their 2008 election. >> this seems to be getting very political. >> mccain did not attend his classified brief on benghazi. >> this seems to be getting very political. >> is it political or personal? >> mitt romney doesn't get it. he doesn't get the job republican ares want him to do after losing an election that they believe they could have won the job that republicans need mitt romney to do is help them forget the words mit and romney. he is failing at this new job just as miserably as he failed at the job of republican nominee for president. he finds himself rebuked today by those because he has once again be caught on tape saying what he thinks about the american people. >> i absolutely resect that notion and description that is wrong. >> here is the difference then them. louisiana governor will be speaking at the next republican national convention in one capacity or another
nominee. >> these unfair attacks on ambassador susan rice are simply wrong. she had to rely on the intelligence that was provided. i sat here while colin powell provide the the intelligence that he had regarding weapons of mass destruction in iraq. >> then you have the audacity to come here and say why wasn't the protection of these people provided for? and the answer is because you dam didn't provide it. >> the sun doesn't come up until 6:52. the 7:30 a.m. start time for the petraeus hearing on the house side is the earliest hearing. high profile or otherwise that he has ever seen. back to you in new york. >>> peter doocy, thanks. 7:30 they think that it early. come on guys. let's get started. >>> staying with the very serious topic of the benghazi hearings we are going to take a look at who is talking. the video was captured drone surveillance. what it means and the investigation into the attack that killed four americans. >> what it did was confirm the fact that there was a bunch of bad guys who stormed this consulate in benghazi some ca y carrying automatic weapons othe
. that doesn't gel too well together. >> two things came out. susan rice was given talking points and this is what we know and they sent her out on the five talk show. the question remains and james clapper yesterday couldn't answer it and acting cia director morell couldn't tell. who put those talking points and time line who said it is a video. is it state intele, or the white house? one of them has to come on. >> gretchen: maybe it was a fog of politics? >> you are putting the cia deputy in the political world. she got a unclassified briefing. why would the cia give the un ambassador who is representing the white house an unclassified briefing. >> gretchen: she is a spokes person for the united states of america and she has an unclassified briefing? i guess you could argue in the slimmest of margins that you wouldn't want to scare the american people and hide what was really going on and say it was another terrorist attack. >> there is one problem with the whole debate. the day before susan rice went on the talk shows, on the 14th. leon paneta secretary of defense with the defe
and not ambassador susan rice. nothing against ambassador susan rice. it is just that john kerry deserves it. he's the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee and oh, by the way again without john kerry saying oh yeah, president obama, barack obama you can do the keynote speech in 2004 when you're only a state senator who's running for senate without that opportunity, there is no obama campaign in 2008. john kerry wants the job. give it to him. got some guy malcolm johnson would calls that 100% idiotic statement. too bad, malcolm. that's how it is. special shout out to the folks on twitter. dab ra and alan -- debra and alan and a couple of others. honesty following us on twitter. >> tweeting at bp show, on this topic, patricia says the media has been reduced to reporting g.o.p. conspiracy theories which is a good point. buckeye kenny saying they're going to try to turn this into something to ruin the president and on your comments about john kerry, j. h. z. says john kerry and state put scott brown in the senate.
the talking points given to susan rice obtained all the intelligence the intelligence community had. without going into detail, there were several reports clearly stating that al qaeda affiliated groups were involved in the attack and were very heavily involved in the attack and that did not make it into the talking points, did not make it into the final talking points that were given to congress or to susan rice even though they were in the original talking points. that's a real issue as to why that was taken out. and i just feel that there are still many unanswered questions as to who actually put the final version of the talking points together. that was not answered today. >> congressman king, you have been tough on susan rice based on the fact that she went out on tv and what she said but tonight it sounds like you're saying she wasn't given all the information that did exist within the intelligence community. we've just heard also barbara starr reporting that tomorrow, petraeus is going to say he felt it was a terror attack from the get-go but there were other strains of intelligence.
. in the process, placing blame on u.n. ambassador susan rice. mccain spent the better part of yesterday on television maligning rice and threatening to block her nomination if the president taps her to be the next secretary of state. yet when mccain and other republicans were given the opportunity to be briefed on the attack, they didn't bother to show up. a two hour closed door session was held yesterday for members of the senate committee investigating ben gauze cighazi. according to "foreign policy magazine" the briefing included representatives from the defense department, the joint chiefs of staff, national counterterrorism center and the fbi. all players in the room. a democratic aide tells cnn that seven out of nine democratic committee members attended the meeting and just three out of eight republicans showed up. so where was john mccain while his fellow committee members were being given details on benghazi? he was holding a press conference. complaining about the lack of details on benghazi. mccain's office says the senator missed the briefing due to a scheduling error. today
the white house change the talking points? and the talking points is a reference to what susan rice said on a round of morning talk shows just a few days after the attacks that sort of cemented this idea in the initial days that this spontaneous demonstration that officials now say did not exist was a reason for what took place and susan rice at the time also said the intelligence was not fully processed. what we've heard from democrats is this idea that there were sort of two waves of an attack and that sort of supports what they think susan rice and the white house was talking about in the first two weeks. we heard more of this this morning on "morning joe" with our friends there, and chambliss, the republican on the senate side in charge of the intelligence community. here is what he talked about with respect to were the talking points given to susan rice based on classified information, unclassified information, or was there some political overlap? >> we spent an awful lot of time on these talking points. the one thing i can tell you a long time before unclassified talking points are
giving its best initial assessment to dr. susan rice who then gave that assessment to the public on behalf of the white house and then the assessment changed on the part of the cia. i'm not sure what the scandal is but i've heard words like watergate being thrown around which i think goes a step too far and is too political. >> cameras did not catch petraeus arriving this morning even though there were reporters staking out every possible entrance and all we saw was a black car leaving his home early this morning. "the washington post" is reporting also here that the hearings are being held in secret committee rooms used for discussion on national security matters. what do you think this says about how petraeus is viewed on the hill? >> well, i don't know what republicans, whether they're fishing for a scandal or not but i'm fishing for answers. there's no doubt that the public was given misleading and wrong information at the beginning by susan rice. the president was exactly right. she was just reading the talking points she was given by the administration and she was on that s
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 159 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)